Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

I was watching the last VLOG, and, right towards the end, Dr. Wheeler mentioned that he would probably rebel against government much more quickly than Dr. Smith, which got me thinking about what Dr. Wheeler would look like in a rebellion……

I’m imagining something along these lines, though I would think his beard would probably have grown out a little more by this stage of social upheaval. You may also be wondering about the Santa hat. I’ve always known Dr. Wheeler as the good-natured sort, so I can’t really picture him in a revolution without some measure of felicity to break up the hum-drummery of fighting for the homeland day in and day out. Anyway, let’s do the mailbag before I get myself in any more trouble.

Q: Daniel asks: “Watching the SOTU audience reactions it seems the following political factions exist: Conservatives, Rinos, Joe Manchin, Liberals not running for President, Liberals running for President, and Socialists. Did I add or miss any?”

A: Joe Manchin really is his own political faction. I think the camera caught 10-15 instances of him standing by his onesie, lonesome self amidst a sea of wrinkled, Democrat faces. At some point, you have to wonder if he ever thinks about joining the Republicans and just ending the charade. But, I suppose he’s the only guy we have left to keep the spectre of bipartisanship from the Democrats, so we’ll leave Joe alone for now. But, yeah, I think you pretty well got it. I don’t have much to say about the SOTU that hasn’t already been said, and everyone’s basically moved on at this point. I thought he had some really good moments (on socialism, guests, and abortion), some ‘meh’ moments (border stuff), and one or two really dumb moments (his North Korea war comment). On the whole, I was pleased.

Q: Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus asks:
Simply put, is witchcraft real? I don’t mean “are there people who think they are capable of performing witchcraft?” I mean is witchcraft itself real? It is referenced several times in the Bible, both in its prohibition and in depictions of individuals actually performing magical acts such as summoning and talking to the dead. Are these superstitions of a bygone era or can people actually perform magic? It seems to me that the only parts of the world with a persistent belief in such things are areas that suffer from gross underdevelopment and a severe lack of literacy and education. If it is real, why don’t we see it in developed countries? If it is not real, why is it referenced with such sincerity in the Bible?

A: Sorta, allow me to elaborate a little bit. First, as always this is my personal view, so make of that what you will. Second, I should clarify that when I’m talking about believing that witchcraft exists, it’s not really in the “double, double, boil and trouble” sense or that of Monty Python’s “She turned me into a newt!…….I got better.”

The worldview that the Bible puts forward is that there is a spiritual realm where the spiritual beings operate and a physical realm where humans operate. From our perspective, you could think of it as the seen and unseen realms. Now, obviously, if you don’t believe in anything supernatural, this really won’t matter or make sense to you, but, for Christians, it shouldn’t really be much of a stretch. At a basic level, the message the Bible has for followers of Yahweh is that there are things happening in the unseen realm that we’re not privy to, and we’re not supposed to go hunting for attention in that realm because there are real forces opposed to Yahweh and, by extension, opposed to you. If you go knocking on the wrong door, you open yourself up to the possibility of trouble. To put it frankly, Christians (a) are not to fraternize with the enemy, and (b) are to be focused on their own tasks in their own area and not spend time worrying about that which they cannot see. There’s a lot you can read on this from scholars like Mike Heiser, but it doesn’t really change the Christian’s mission to focus on the Gospel. We’re not called to be ghostbusters or occult warriors; we’re called to spread the good news of Christ. The unseen things are Yahweh’s business, not ours.

As to why we see it more in underdeveloped countries, haven’t you read Screwtape Letters No. 7? I shudder to think what became of the poor courier who leaked those letters from the Under Secretary’s collection….

Q: George Hamilton-Gordon, Lord Haddo and Earl of Aberdeen asks: “While the aura of controversy around the NFL seems to have died down, the Super Bowl still received fairly disappointing ratings. Will the NFL slowly recover its viewership, or does it need something new and significant – an exciting new juggernaut, a rule change, etc.?”

A: For this Super Bowl in particular, I have a feeling that the ratings were disappointing because the game simply stunk. All the high-flying offense and visual awe we were promised was conspicuously missing, the half-time show was mediocre at best, the commercials underwhelmed compared to years past, and the Patriots won….again….for the sixth time in Brady’s career. Ironically, I think the only good thing about the Super Bowl was the national anthem, which, patriotic though I am, is a rather small pittance of a compensation for the three hour time commitment.

As for the general decline in viewership, I think the NFL has the thing it needs to renew interest, namely the young bucks found on teams like the Rams and the Chiefs. The game between them was easily the highlight of the season for me, and it’s the first time I heard widespread discussion of a regular season game in a long while. It was a high octane, offense-dense thriller that stayed competitive for four full quarters. More occurrences like that would be a definite boon for the NFL. On the whole though, we’re likely just witnessing the law of undulation play out in the sport. Ratings go up; ratings go down, but football probably won’t go anywhere unless it gets banned for health reasons. Don’t forget, even if your viewership declines for the Super Bowl, it may be a moot point if there’s still over 100 million people watching.

Q: George also asks: “If you could have one male lead and one female lead for a movie starting filming tomorrow, and unlimited funds to attract them, who would you pick?”

A: Gosh…well, I’d probably pick Robert Downey Jr. for my male lead and Kristen Bell for my female lead, and I’d have them star in a suburban dark comedy with the Coen brothers and Quentin Tarantino co-directing. I don’t even think I’d really care what the plot was at that point; I’d just want to see what pops out of that combination.

Q: George finally asks: “Given this article from Five Thirty Eight showing Trump’s strength in farming states, can any of the potential Democratic candidates rally more support among the rural community while the party is moving toward the left more generally?”

A: Well, I suppose anything is possible, and Trump certainly isn’t doing himself any favors by doubling down on the tariffs. The main problem I have with this theory is that I just can’t imagine the Democrats nominating someone who reaches out to farmers nearly enough to pull them into the camp. As of today, it looks like they are going to run a hard-left ticket and bank on the intersectionality coalition and a clump of dissatisfied suburban voters to lift them to victory. I suppose common logic would suggest a Sherrod Brown (blech…) or someone from a crucial swing state could make some in-roads here, but I really don’t see that playing out.

Now, that being said, it may still be worth watching the farmers; perhaps they don’t turn to the Democrats, but it’s possible that they just stay home. Trump gets defeated by apathy. There’s not much in the article to suggest that farmers are thrilled to jump to the Democrats, but there is evidence in there to suggest they may be despondent enough to not vote. Assuming ceteris paribus with the other voting groups (which is probably unrealistic, but who knows), that could sink the President’s reelection bid. At the end of the day, though, I’ll probably have a decent answer for you a couple days or weeks after the election or maybe none at all. We’re still parsing out what happened in 2016, so I’m not that optimistic about understanding the 2020 vote anytime soon.

Q: Sam asks for my thought on some economics bluegrass music.

A: This is a definite first for me; I did not know such a thing existed. I’ve heard of econ rap before, but bluegrass is a new one. Anyway, for those of you who listened to the song, it’s not a bad one on the whole, though I can’t help but think that the song would have been unnecessary had the Fed been more restrained back in ye olden days of the late 2000s. Merle says he’s worrying about the Great Unwind, and he should be to an extent, but that begs the question of whether or not the Fed should have gotten themselves into their present, precarious pickle. “But, Matt, if the Fed hadn’t intervened, wouldn’t that have been worse on the economy?” In the short run, perhaps, but it also would have exposed those who mismanaged resources to the consequences of their actions and led to a healthier economy in the long run. “But, Matt, aren’t we all dead in the long run?” Ok, Mr. Keynes, back to the economic grave where you belong. Shooh, shooh!

And, I think that’s a wrap for this week. Keep your questions coming, your aliases grand, and your inquisitive sides stoked and ready to learn. See you next week.